During the 16thcentury,
religious unrest against the Catholic Church had climaxed and the emergence of
different Christian schisms was quickly on the rise in mainland Europe and
Britain. In England, the advent of
Protestantism saw an increasingly popular demand for Church reform – headed by
none other than King Henry VIII – that ultimately called for English Christians
to divorce themselves from the authority of Rome and accept the new form of
Christianity introduced by the English monarch. One
of the major changes that resulted from this Protestant movement in England was
the production of a myriad of English translations of the bible that were both
popular and accessible among the English masses.

Naturally, the Roman authorities were
growing alarmed at the rise of Protestantism in England and the rapidity in
which the English translated bibles were being purchased by English Catholics. Many
English Catholics claimed that the Church-sanctioned Latin Vulgate was too
antiquated and incomprehensible for those that were not versed in Latin. Under
these circumstances, the officials of the Catholic Church felt that they had no
other choice but to appease English Catholics and to offer up their own
translation of the bible in the English vernacular that, if nothing else, was at
least translated according to the Church’s standards rather than those of
Protestant dissidents.

II) Differences
between Catholic and Protestant Bibles:

Since the rise of Protestantism, the
differences employed in translating the bible between Catholics and Protestants
were, and in some cases still are, based on a number of differences. The
first of these is the different primary sources that the two groups were
known to use when translating the bible. Up
until the mid-20thcentury,
the only authorized version of the bible that the Church allowed to be used as a
source for translation was the Latin Vulgate (which was in and of itself already
a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts). During the Council
of Trent in 1545, the Church claimed that the Latin Vulgate, first translated by
St. Jerome in the fifth century and then later updated by Pope Clementine in
1592, was the only acceptable version of the bible and if translations of the
bible were to be done correctly, then the Vulgate – and only the Vulgate – had
to be used by translators as the key source.

The English Protestants,
on the other hand, dismissed this theory and argued that in order to
precisely translate the content of the bible without translating the potential
errors that may have already existed in a translated text, then the original
manuscripts of the bible needed to be employed as the primary sources (i.e. The
Hebrew books for the Old Testament and the Greek manuscript for the New
Testament) and not a translated version like the Latin Vulgate. For
much of the last five centuries, Catholics and Protestants translated their
bibles with this key difference in mind; however, important to note, is that
the Catholic Church has recently moved away from authorizing only translations
that evolved from the Latin Vulgate, encouraging instead that the bible be
translated from the original languages as well. Accordingly,
Catholic bibles that have been translated within the last 50 years have
generally adhered to the Hebrew and Greek texts as authentic sources rather than
the Latin Vulgate. A more
detailed account for this change within the Catholic Church will be discussed
later.

A second key difference that
still exists between Protestant and Catholic bibles is the Catholic bible’s
acceptance and inclusion of all but three deuterocanonical books (i.e.
Apocryphal books) in the Old Testament, such as the Books of Tobit, Judith,
Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, that neither Jewish nor Protestants sects
recognize as containing any canonical merit. The
Greek Septuagint, translated by St. Jerome during the fifth century, has come to
be accepted by the Catholic Church as containing scripturally inspired texts.[1]Protestant
translators acknowledge these books as being historically relevant, but not
divinely inspired, although they have been known to include them in ecumenical
translations of the bible as a separate section (usually located between the Old
and New Testaments). Catholic
translators, conversely, will intersperse these books within the Old Testament
equating their value to that of the books of the Old Testament.

A final difference between the Catholic
and Protestant bible revolves around the interpretation of key passages. While
many of the words and indeed phraseology of certain sections of the bible may be
translated in exactly the same way in both bibles, the way the passages are
interpreted will vary from one Christian group to the next. For
instance, the Catholic Church claims that there is ample evidence in the New
Testament to suggest Mary’s perpetual virginity, the existence of purgatory, and
the affirmation that priests should remain celibate. Protestants,
on the other hand, suggest that there is in fact no solid evidence supporting
any of these theories and accuses the Catholic Church of misrepresenting the
overall messages of the bible. Likewise,
the Protestants argue that the Catholic Church’s endorsement of sacraments (i.e.
the rituals of baptism, reconciliation, communion, confirmation, and the
anointment of the sick) are not reflected in the content of the bible and
consequently, do not prove that Christ (or God) intended for these rituals to be
practiced by Christians or that they necessarily lead to salvation.

III)Archaic
Language, Latinisms and the Latin Influence:

a)The
Douai-Rheims Bible(1609, 1610)

Before delving into the 20thcentury
translations of the bible, it is necessary to take a look at the first
English translation of the Catholic Bible: the Douai-Rheims, published in
its entirety in two volumes in 1609 and 1610, and translated in reaction to the
many Protestant versions already in circulation in Britain during the early 17thcentury. Despite
the Church’s noblest efforts in attempting to produce a Catholic bible in which
English Catholics would better understand than the Latin Vulgate, the majority
of the English people did not find solace in this new translation. In
fact, they complained that the bible was completely riddled with Latinisms so
much so that certain passages were completely incomprehensible to the English
reader. For instance, in Philippians 2:7, the Douai-Rheims reads: “Heexinanitedhimself.” In
Jeremiah, there is an even more outlandish and undecipherable passage: “The Ram
he shal immolate for apacifiquehoste
to the Lord, offering withal the baskette ofazymesandlibametesthat
by custom are dew” (Numbers 6:17). Latin-based
words like “exinaninate,” “libametes” and “azymes” were just as foreign to the
English in the 17thcentury
as they are today to English speakers.[2]

As a result of these Latinisms and the
overall popularity of the English Protestant bibles, the sales for the
Douai-Rheims were meagre upon its publication and a Catholic version of the
bible in the vernacular remained virtually unknown among English Catholics
throughout the 17thand 18thcenturies. Catholics
in England either opted to purchase a Protestant version of the bible or refuse
to have one altogether until Bishop Challoner made some major revisions to the
Douai-Rheims in 1738. The
Douai-Rheims remained the only authorized vernacular translation of the bible
until the middle of the 20thcentury
when Ronald Knox translated and offered up his own English translation. It
is discussed below.

b)The
Knox Bible(1945)

The Knox bible, published in its
entirety in 1945, surprisingly employed an old edition of the Latin Vulgate
(1592) as its main source rather than the original Hebrew and Greek texts. This
is surprising because just two years earlier, in 1943, before Knox completed his
translation, the Vatican issued an encyclical titledDivino
Afflante Spirituthat encouraged
would-be translators to translate the bible into the vernacular from the
original manuscripts of Hebrew and Greek and not Latin. Knox, however, chose not
to, believing that since Latin was the official language of the Church and that
the Vulgate was the Church’s original bible the only way he could produce an
accurate translation that reflected the values of Catholicism was to use the
1592 edition of the Vulgate even though he was aware that this edition contained
some errors in its translation. For
instance, in certain sections, the Vulgate uses the Latin wordurbem“city”
whenorbem“world”
should have been intended. In Acts 17:6, the passage in the 1592 translation of
the Vulgate translates to “These that have turned thecityupside
down are come hither also.” The
correct translation should have readworldinstead
ofcity, which Knox was more
than aware of. However, because the Vulgate usedcity,
Knox felt that he had no authority to change the meaning of that passage in his
translation even thoughworldwould
have been the correct translation.Subsequently,
Knox erroneously translated the same passage using the English wordstatein
the place whereworldshould
have been.

Ironically, however, Knox did not follow
the conventions of the Vulgate when it came to the style of his
translation. Rather than translating the poetic aspects of the bible (i.e. with
the Hebrew Parallelism) the way the Vulgate did, Knox opted to render his
translation completely in prose, suggesting that English Catholics would be more
familiar with his style of writing than with what he called the “wholly foreign”
style of the Vulgate. His style,
though, despite being in simple prose, is still odd and archaic. More
than keeping antique language such as “thee” and “thou” throughout the text,
Knox also inverts subjects and verbs and rarely uses articles and conjunctions:
“Bright flash that enemy’s shields, warriors of his go clad in scarlet; dark
like flame his chariots as he goes to the attack, dizzilysways
charioteer. Howjostle
theyin the streets, those
chariots, hurtle theyin the
open market-place;dazzle theylike
flame of torches, like lightning that comes and goes” (Prophecy of Nahum
2:3-4). Knox believed that by
translating the bible in such an unorthodox manner, more people would be
inclined to read it because it would read more as an original text than just a
simple translation.

Knox’s use of the Vulgate as his source
for translation resulted in the names of the biblical books to be kept in Latin,
such as the Book of Abdias for the more commonly used Obadiah. Also, like the
publication of the Douai-Rheims centuries before his own translation, Knox’s
bible is guilty of containing some Latinisms (i.e. “perdition” instead of
“destruction”) – albeit not to the extent of the Douai-Rheims. Naturally,
the Latin influenced vocabulary caused some confusion among English Catholics,
many of whom would have been unable to decipher the meanings of the Latin-based
words in the bible. Likewise,
because the Knox bible is also guilty of being infused with archaic language
(i.e. “thee” and “thou” is used instead of “you”), the modern, English-speaking
Catholic would have found the language of the bible to be at odds with his or
her own vernacular.

Being a Catholic bible, the apocryphal
books are of course included in Knox’s translation. Likewise, to ensure that his
translation preserved Catholic dogma only, Knox inserted footnotes to reinforce
Catholic interpretation and to clarify the meanings behind some passages that
remained a bit ambiguous in his translation. For
instance, in Matthew 12:46-50, Knox’s bible makes mention of Jesus’s brothers. However,
as the footnote is quick to point out, Mary could not have possibly borne any
other children since, according to Catholic teachings, she remained a virgin
throughout her life. The footnote
explains: “it is impossible for anyone who holds the Catholic tradition to
suppose that our Lord had brothers by blood…the most common opinion is that
these ‘brethren’ were his cousins; a relationship for which the Jews had no
separate name.”

Knox’s bible received great acclaim when
it was first published. Timemagazine
called Knox the “man who made the great 20thcentury
bible.” Ultimately, his translation
offered up a newer version to the Douai-Rheims and was welcomed by many English
Catholics in the middle of the 20thcentury;
however, his translation – still containing a heavily Latin influenced and
archaic vocabulary – would soon be overshadowed by future, more modern,
translations.

IV) Out with the
Old: Introducing the Modern Vernacular into the Catholic Bible:

a)Revised
Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE)(1966)

The RSV was one of the first English
bibles to be translated that gained approval by both Protestant and Catholic
groups. The
Protestant edition of the RSV was published first in 1952 and then, with some
help from Catholic scholars, the complete Catholic Edition of the RSV was
released in 1966 bearing some interpretative changes in certain footnotes
as well as containing the addition of the deuterocanonical books in the Old
Testament.Some of the most
notable changes made to the Catholic edition were the gospel references relating
to the preservation of Mary’s continual virginity. For
instance, “Favoured one” becomes “Full of Grace” and “Jesus’s brothers” is
changed to “Jesus’s brethren.” In
total, 93 changes were made to the New Testament; with the exception of adding
the deuterocanonical books to the Old Testament, no changes were made to any of
the Old Testament passages. Interestingly
enough, the vast majority of footnotes that were added by the Catholic
translators were generally accepted by most Protestants.

The key event that allowed Catholic
translators to join forces with Protestants for the publication of the RSV was
the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).Vatican
II called for major Church reforms; most notably in this case was the Church’s
encouragement that all Catholic translators unite with other Christian
denominations to work simultaneously on bible translations with the hope that
dialogue among the different sects would improve. Indeed,
without the changes brought on by Vatican II it would be difficult to imagine
that this joint project between Catholics and Protestants would have ever
happened.

Unlike the Knox Bible that uses archaic
language throughout, the RSV implemented a more contemporary, 20thcentury
vocabulary to their translation, which essentially resulted in a much clearer
translation of some of the passages. For
example, the passage “Move from here to here” is a more modern rendition than
the archaic “Move hence to yonder place” (Matthew 17:20). For
the most part, the RSV adopted a literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek
texts, so much so, that at times the translators would follow the word order
of the original manuscripts and not the word order that made most sense in
English. This was often the main
point of contention among the critics of the RSV.

The RSV is perhaps most well-known for
igniting the Isaiah controversy among conservative Protestants and some
conservative Catholics when the translators did not use the term “virgin” to
address Mary in the Isaiah 7:14 passage, but rather opted for the more ambiguous
term “young woman.” Conservatives
argued that the reference to Mary as a “young woman” was misleading and
inaccurate while the translators of the RSV adamantly claimed that the term
“young woman” was the most correct portrayal of the Hebrew wordalmâ,
since the term in Hebrew only translates to young, unmarried woman – not
necessarily a virgin.Ultimately,
staunch Protestant conservatives reacted negatively to this translation in
America and some even deemed it a “communist” version of the bible, publicly
burning copies of it. Despite these
actions however, the majority of Christians welcomed and praised the RSV
translation for being the first modern version of the bible that attempted to
unify all English-speaking Christians.

b)Jerusalem
Bible (JB)(1966):

The Jerusalem Bible was the first
completely Catholic bible to be translated from the original languages of Hebrew
and Greek instead of Latin. The
first translation of this bible was actually produced in 1961 by a group of
French monks in Jerusalem. Important
to note however, is that despite the origins of this bible being in French, the
majority of the English edition was translated from the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts. The only time the
French translation was utilized as the main source for the English version
occurred when there was more than one possible interpretation for a particular
passage. Unlike Knox’s bible, the JB
retains the poetic form found in the Hebrew text. In
fact, the poetry and eloquent literary style is what this bible has been most
praised for.

In this version of the bible, some
archaic language is eliminated, although not all. For
example, the second singular is written in the modern English “you” form, but
God is consistently addressed in the traditional “Yahweh” rather than the more
contemporary “Lord” appellation. The
language delicately balances the contemporary lexicon of British English of the
1960s with the formal and liturgical language of the Church and it cleverly
comes up with a suitable compromise for the Isaiah controversy that plagued the
RSV upon its publication. Rather
than referring to Mary as a “virgin” or a “young woman,” the JB, addresses her
as a “maiden.”

The Jerusalem Bible is not
overwhelmingly “Catholic” like the Knox bible, but many of the footnotes
throughout remind the reader that this bible ought to be interpreted according
to Catholic teachings. For instance,
in Matthew 1:25, when Mary’s virginity is in question, the note reads, “The text
is not concerned with the period that followed and, taken by itself does not
assert Mary’s perpetual virginity which, however, the gospels elsewhere suppose
and which the Tradition of the Church affirms.” Likewise,
in 1 Corinthians 3:14-15, the JB redirects the reader’s attention to the
footnote on the bottom of the page suggesting that this passage indicates the
Church’s belief in purgatory: “This is not a direct reference to purgatory but
several Doctors of the Church have taken it as a basis for that doctrine.”[3]

Overall, the JB has been considered one
of the better translations of the 20thcentury
and is praised by both Catholics and Protestants for its eloquent language and
detailed notes. The
main criticism with this bible though, is that some feel that the translators
read more into the text than what the original writings seem to have suggested. For
example, in 1 Corinthians 7-12, the JB translates the verse in this way: “since
sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own
husband.” However, according to the
Greek manuscript, the opening clause of that verse should translate to “because
there is so much immorality.” The JB
assumes that Paul, in this passage, is offering up generic advice about the
potential dangers of sex; yet, it is very clear in other, more accurate,
translations that Paul’s advice refers exclusively to the dangers of a certain
time and place, namely Corinth – a city that, at that time, was extensively
immoral and raging out of control, even within the walls of the Church. The
way the translators of the JB opted to translate this passage may have had more
to do with the modern context surrounding its publication (i.e. the rebellion
against sexual mores that was starting to take shape in the 1960s at the same
time this bible was being put together) than with the original meaning of the
translation.

c)New
American Bible (NAB)(1970):

In 1970, the first American Catholic
bible, the New American Bible, was translated and published as a counterpart to
the British Jerusalem Bible; and, like the JB, the NAB was translated from the
Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The
NAB was the first Catholic bible to completely eliminate archaic language (i.e.
“you” is used for both singular and plural forms of the second person). It
also replaced traditionally Catholic spellings of names with those more
generally used in other (Protestant) bibles. For
instance,Isaiah, originally
spelt without the “h” ending in previous Catholic bibles, has the “h” in the
NAB. Like the RSV, this bible was
translated by a team of biblical scholars, not all of them were Catholic;
indeed, five of the translators were Protestants.

The translation of the NAB has been
cited as one of the most contemporary written, straightforward and accurate
translations of any modern bible. It
is clear and simple and reflective of the American lexicon (rather than British
English as the JB is). In comparison
to the JB, the language is more brief and conservative and for this reason many
scholars believe that the NAB stays most true to the content in the original
texts. Its one criticism
stylistically, however, is that the language of this bible is boring and that
the books of the bible read very “plain, flat, and matter-of-fact” lacking the
eloquence and poetic nuances present in the JB.

Unlike the JB, the NAB has only a few
footnotes, most of which, surprisingly, neither reinforce nor interpret certain
passages exclusively according to Catholic dogma. For
instance, no special point is made to the Church’s belief in purgatory in 1
Corinthians 3:14-15 as was the case in the Jerusalem Bible. Likewise,
in Matthew 1:25 where Mary’s virginity is questioned, the footnote only states
that, “the evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the mother of Jesus from the
moment of his conception to his birth,” but does not stress that Mary’s
perpetual virginity is a tradition upheld by the Church. Moreover,
with regards to the Church’s affirmation that priests must remain celibate to
mirror the celibacy of the apostles, the NAB paradoxically appears to indicate
that the apostles were more than likely married and therefore not celibate in 1
Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do
the rest of the apostles?” In older
translations of the bible such as the JB, this passage is generally marked with
a footnote implying that these women were more than likely the apostles’ sisters
and not their wives. As a result,
this specific translation follows the Protestant line of thinking a lot closer
than the Catholic one, since preserving the apostles’ celibacy – which is what
the NAB does not do – is what is usually referred to by the Catholic Church as
the reason why priests must remain celibate.

Upon its first publication in 1970, the
NAB introduced gender-inclusive language in some of its passages (i.e. “brothers
and sisters” is used to address a mixed group of people) in an attempt to reach
all audiences. However, when God’s
gender is mentioned or in passages that are deemed to contain theological
importance, the masculine form is always utilized. For
example, Psalm 1:1 reads, “Happy theman[not
man and woman] who follows not the counsel of the wicked.” When the NAB was
commissioned, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops determined that
this reference in the Book of Psalms was theologically reflective of Catholic
teachings and as such needed to stay in the masculine form.

The
NAB is the only Catholic bible currently authorized by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops for liturgical use in America. Naturally,
to reflect the social and political changes of the later years of the 20thcentury
it – along with the bibles discussed below – has gone through a series of
editions and revisions in the last 30 years (the 2000 edition being the most
recent publication). As will be
discussed in the final section of this webpage, during the later years of the 20thcentury,
bible translators have attempted to move towards translation methods that are
gender inclusive and politically correct overall without compromising the
meanings and messages of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

V) Gender
Inclusiveness and the Politically Correct Bible:

a)New
Jerusalem Bible (NJB)(1985):

As the title suggests, the NJB is a
revised, up-to-date edition of the 1966 version of the JB. The
main difference between this publication and the older JB is that the NJB
consciously added gender-inclusive language throughout to avoid what the preface
of this bible claims is “the masculine preference.” Given
the rise of feminism and gender-equality movements in the West during the 1970s
and 1980s, the translators of the NJB offered up a version of the bible that
they felt best represented these societal changes while remaining true to the
original biblical sources. As such,
in passages like Exodus 20:17, the NJB offers up a translation that is
representative of both sexes: “Neighbour’s wife,” for instance, becomes
“Neighbour’s spouse.” As well,
the reference to Mary as a “young woman” in the Isaiah 7:14 passage, that caused
so much controversy when the RSV was released, is also translated as “young
woman” in the NJB rather than the more conservative “virgin” that is found in
the NAB.

Despite these revisions, however, the
NJB did not radically modify all of its passages to reflect the political
changes that were occurring in the outside world. Gender
inclusiveness, for instance, is not inserted in all passages and certainly not
included when God’s gender is in question. Nevertheless,
the changes made by the NJB should not be overlooked. Being
one of the first Catholic bibles to consciously offer up a translation that at
least attempted to utilize a vocabulary that was inclusive in as many places as
the translators deemed fit, the NJB is considered one of the more groundbreaking
translations of the 20thcentury. Ultimately,
the 1985 publication of the NJB opened the door for the more
progressively-aligned translation to be released – that being, the New Revised
Standard Bible.

b)New
Revised Standard Bible – Catholic Edition(NRSV-CE)
(1990):

In 1990, the New Revised Version of the
RSV was published. Hoping to gain
support by all Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church,
translators of the NRSV also published a Catholic edition of the translation
that included in the deuterocanonical books in the order that the Catholic
Church deemed correct. Strikingly
different about this Catholic edition though is that the footnotes that pertain
specifically to Catholic interpretation in other bibles are, for the most part,
left out in this translation. Thus,
in 1 Corinthians 3:14-15, no reference at all is made to the Church’s belief in
purgatory whereas in previous translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible, a
footnote indicating the Church’s position in this matter is indicated.

More than just eliminating archaic
language and antiquated phraseology, this edition of the bible is perhaps best
known for its removal ofallmasculine-oriented
language (except in relation to God) and is generally perceived as the most
progressive Catholic bible currently available. Some
examples of gender inclusiveness include changes from “mankind” to “humankind,”
“my son” to “my child” and, in the Titus 1:56 passage, “the husbands of but one
wife” to “married only once.” Also, the controversial Isaiah 7:14 verse
retains the reference to Mary as “young woman” like the RSV and NJB rather than
going with the more conservative “virgin” translation.

Not surprisingly, the emergence of
gender-inclusiveness and politically correct language in the bible resulted in
some criticisms among conservative Christians upon this bible’s publication. Some
argued that the translators of the NRSV inserted gender-inclusiveness in
passages where only males were the intended referents. A
common example critics cite is the Book of Proverbs where the translators
changed the gender-specific “my son” to the gender-neutral “my child” even
though this particular Book of the bible revolves around the story of a specific
father giving advice to his son.

Despite these criticisms, however,
the NRSV (both the Protestant and Catholic editions) has been acclaimed as the
best scholarly translation of the bible for study and liturgical use. In
addition to reflecting the social and political climate of the late 20thcentury,
the NRSV is praised for its unambiguous language – a claim that the 17thcentury
publication of the Douai-Rheims could never make. An
example of this clarity can be seen when comparing a passage from Corinthians
between the NRSV and the older RSV edition. In
the newer edition, the verse is clear-cut and simple. It
reads: “Once I received a stoning.” Conversely,
the 1952 edition of the RSV refers to the exact same passage in a much more
ambiguous manner: “Once I was stoned” (2 Corinthians 11:25). Without
a doubt, the modern reader would have a little more difficulty deciphering the
meaning of the RSV passage than it would with the NRSV.

Upon its publication in 1990, the
NRSV-CE has replaced the NJB in Britain and Canada as the only bible authorized
by the Conference of Catholic Bishops for liturgical use in the two nations.

V1) Conclusion:

Since
its first English translation nearly four centuries ago, the Catholic bible has
certainly gone through a series of evolutions in the 20thcentury. From
Knox’s translation in 1945 to the very contemporary publication of the NRSV-CE
in 1990, all of the changes made to the bible reflect both the reforms made
within the Church, such as Vatican II and the socio-political movements that
were occurring at the time the translations were put together. The
shared relationship between Protestant and Catholic translators throughout the
20thcentury to create a
bible that was representative of all Christian values and the addition of gender
inclusive language in the 1980s and 1990s are perhaps two of the most
significant changes made to the editions of the Catholic bibles in the 20thcentury
and changes that were welcomed by both Protestants and Catholics alike.

The start of the new millennium,
however, saw the Vatican issue a controversial publication calling for tighter
translation laws within the Church. The
Church hoped that by encouraging stringent translation laws, translators would
come up with only one version of the bible in the vernacular. Given
all of the strides that were made in the 20thcentury
to create a bible in which all Christians could approve of, it is not surprising
that the Vatican’s request has yet to be fulfilled.

[1]The
Greek Septuagint is an old translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that dates as
far back as 250 BC.

[2]In
contemporary bible translations, the termexinanitedis
generally translated as “emptied.” With
regards to the other terms, there is no clear indication what any of those
translate to mean in modern English; however, the translation of Numbers 6:17 is
written as follows in the Revised Standard Version Bible: “He
shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace offering to the LORD, with the
basket of unleavened bread; the priest shall offer also its cereal offering and
its drink offering.”

[3]1
Corinthians 3:14-15 reads: “If what has been built on the foundation survives,
the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will
suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.”